548 – Christian Economics: An Interview with Dr. Gary North

Dr. Gary North has dedicated 10 hours per week for the last 40+ years to the task of investigating what the Bible has to say about economics.

In the process, he has written a verse-by-verse commentary of the entirety of the Old Testament and the New Testament (totaling 8,550 pages).

He is now in the process of publishing his capstone works titled: Christian Economics. He has published the Student’s Edition and Teacher’s Edition (free at link below) and is working on the Scholar’s Edition and Activist’s Edition.

25 Comments

Ken
on May 21, 2018 at 8:14 pm

That was an awkward interview. You both made great points about the divorce and remarriage issue. But he didn’t seem to respect your opinion, like it was his way or the highway. There was no possibility he could be wrong.

For a non-Christian the conversation was equal parts fascinating and frustrating. Some of the jargon (“amillenial”, “Two Kingdoms”, etc.) went over my head but one could still pick up the gist. The argument that insisting that even the wronged party must stay in the marriage amounts to “protecting the perpetrator” at the expense of the victim is interesting, and maybe even compelling in some circumstances. But North didn’t seem to credit the more subtle point I thought Joshua was making, or at least hinting at, to whit:

Yes, preventing the victim from outright ending the marriage lets the perpetrator off the hook in a sense, but it also keeps him (or her) “in” the marriage whether they want to be free of it or not, so it exerts a continuous pressure on the wrongdoer to correct the bad behavior. Even MORE subtly, though, it keeps the so-called victim honest. Sometimes indeed it will be clear-cut that one person is a victim, but what about more complicated situations. What about a person so neglectful of their duties as a spouse that they “drive” the other party to some misbehavior short of physical abuse, like adultery? Yes, adultery is always wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the person who was cheated upon may not have been wishing for it to happen in order to have a pretext to end the marriage. There are multiple possible circumstances where both parties may be looking for an easy way out, and the pretext of a “broken covenant” that allows for this might be just the out they’re looking for.

Now a secularist might say, “well Jeez, if both people want out then they SHOULD get divorced”. But if we value marriage, certainly the extent that Jesus did, we shouldn’t want that. So yea, compelling, nuanced stuff.

Your insight is keen and you highlight exactly the challenge with discussing the topics of divorce/remarriage. Every position has difficult problems to reconcile.

The covenantal position that Dr. North is defending has trouble figuring out exactly what is “adultery,” for example. There are some adulterous situations/acts that are clear-cut. But today, I hear many advisors referring to things like pornography usage as “adultery.” Or referring to romantic feelings that have been kindled in the heart as “emotional infidelity.” Then they use this as justification for divorce.

I have a hard time accepting this. (And I could give a dozen more example of the problem with the covanental approach.)

The position that I defend also has many challenges. I believe there are far fewer challenges, but there are still challenges. For example, How do you protect a spouse and children from abuse? How much abuse is acceptable? What do you do with a non-repentant spouse? How do you assure that a repentant spouse is sincere if you are seeking to reconcile a relationship? Etc. etc.

No matter which way you cut it, it’s one of the most difficult issues to work with.

P.S. — I did a little reading about North’s controversial views, which were hinted at in the interview. Perhaps because they were hinted at, I wasn’t shocked at them and they seem to stem from his philosophy being taken to its logical (and hence absurd?) conclusion.

The stronger criticism, I think, comes from his perpetual predictions of doom which always go unfulfilled. Y2K is the most famous example, but there were others. This bias toward apocalyptic predictions seems to represent, to me, a habit of mind towards confirmation bias. This is the very kind of anti-empiricism and alarmism that Joshua has taken pains to avoid in his own thought.

The only predictions of doom that I’m aware of is North’s strong warnings about the danger of Y2K. He was quite vocal in warning people about the potential danger of the Y2K bug.

He was wrong.

I asked him about it one time. I really appreciated his answer. It was something like this: “It’s much better to speak what you see and believe and to be proven wrong than to be a coward and remain silent.” (That’s not a verbatim quote…just my recollection of his words.)

This was a number of years ago and I’ve thought of it often. I’ve made the same determination to speak what I think and believe and be willing to be shown to be wrong rather than to remain silent from cowardice.

FYI, I think you have a misunderstanding of Dr. North’s position. As a postmillenialist, Dr. North predicts a continual upward trend over the long-term. The future holds greater wealth, greater peace, greater harmony, etc. And this will continue throughout history, culminating in a very long period of peace/prosperity, after which Jesus Christ will return to the earth for the final judgement.

In this regard, he does not prophesy doom and gloom. In fact, his perspective is very different than many premillenial Christians who do prophesy doom and gloom.

Your title declares that this interview is about Christian Economics. Did you ever get to this topic? If so, can you republish that part? I really tried to wade through your discussion, but Dr. North was not explaining his position well to those of us not familiar with his teaching. You were making presumptions and leaps of logic without helping us to know how you made connections. I get it that you are wrestling with faith issues, we all have been there, however may I request that you change the title from Christian Economics to something that better describes this particular interview.

I don’t know how it would be possible to synthesize the thousands of pages that Dr. North has carefully written into a short interview. I encourage you to follow the links in the post and read the free books.

For those who are unfamiliar with Dr. Gary North, I would encourage you to read a few of his many articles. He has written a great deal on other subjects such as homeschooling, politics, central banking, careers, personal finance, and so much more.

On the issue of the differences between Mexico and Canada, I think it brings up an interesting subject that Joshua was trying to get at. Dr. North was saying that the two countries have different political and legal structures, which accounts for the differences in living standards. But the political and legal systems in a country, at least to a certain degree, reflect the opinions of the people. It is evident that Canadians, in general, have a greater respect for property rights and liberty, just as Americans have a slightly higher regard for liberty than do Canadians (but not on all issues).

Just because more Mexicans would self-identify as Catholic (or Christian), it does not make them more moral or ethical. Perhaps Dr. North would disagree with this, but I don’t think all ethics and morals have to be based on religious beliefs. I know many people who would consider themselves agnostic, atheist, or non-religious, yet they would not hurt a fly. Even though they are not religious, they still believe it is immoral to hurt other people or infringe on their property without consent. There are also many self-identified Christians who are miserable people and lack ethics to a large degree. Now, you could certainly argue that they aren’t actually being Christian because they aren’t acting in accordance with Christian teachings, but they can still walk around calling themselves Christian.

When discussing the idea of ethics/morality and religion, there is a common error that frequently creeps in: the error is to automatically conflate the religious philosophy of a person and their personal actions.

I know lots of atheists/agnostics who are honorable, upright people who I would trust to care for my children and whom I enjoy being with.

I know lots of self-professed Christians who are dishonest and immoral people that I would never allow around my children.

I think this type of experience is common to us all.

But this is very different from the philosophical debate regarding the grounding of ethics/moral principles. The question is not, “Can an atheist be good?” or “Can a Christian be bad?” The question is rather, “Can the philosophy of atheism give a coherent grounding for objective moral principles and duties?” and “Can the philosophy of Christianity give a coherent grounding for objective moral principles and duties?”

These are very different questions.

They should impact one another. For example, if atheism can give a coherent grounding for objective moral principles and duties, then you should see a population of atheists reflecting a high (or higher) degree of moral behavior than other comparative groups.

And same with Christians.

And that was the question I was trying to pry into in discussing the difference between Mexico and Canada.

This distinction is important to me because without it, it’s very difficult for religious/non-religious people to find common ground and discuss their differences.

If a Christian thinks, “I’m a good person because I believe the right thing…” it can create a destructive attitude of arrogance that is very off-putting to the non-believer. (Hopefully their Christian theology is coherently structured so that they understand the influence of sin in their own life and hopefully they’ve been humbled already.)

Same goes in reverse for the atheist.

Whenever I discuss topics like this in public, I am always referring to the philosophical system of thought, not to an individual’s behavior. That’s the right discussion to have in public. The personal discussion of another person’s actions is, in my opinion, best reserved for private interaction.

Gary joked that only 8 people would get through the while interview. I was one of them. He is a smart guy and he has been at this a long time. Hard to score any debating points against him. The application of bible verses to divorce is subject to a lot of interpretation. I don’t think either of you are particularly compelling on this.

In high school I went to church with a few hard core Calvinists. You couldn’t have a logical, cool-headed debate about scripture with them. A simple question of, “What happens to babies when they die?” was answered with an accusation of “You don’t believe in God’s sovereignty!!!”. I feel like maybe Dr. North is coming from the same place.

Because of those experiences, I mentally and emotionally check out whenever I hear Bahnsen or Rushdoony mentioned. And who’s the other guy? Oh yeah, Sproul. I heard a lot about him, too. And Augustine. Why?? So many quotes from the theologians, so few quotes from Jesus.

To date, I’ve not had the courage to read any of their work for fear of being turned into a debating Christian robot monster. Kudos to you for using grace, tact and respect in the interview.

I really enjoyed this interview, although I am certainly not aligned with theonomists. I thought both of you had very insightful commentary and I learned a lot from the interview. I haven’t resolved the marriage divorce issue although probably align with the Westminster Confession on this one. I don’t know much about G. North but I would imagine that his thinking would lead to Federal Vision theology, which I find to be troubling. One type of covenant that seemed to be ignored was that of a royal grant (vs. Suzerain Treaty). While a Suzerain Treaty has blessings and curses associated with obedience / disobedience, a royal grant is given regardless of obedience (Meredith Kline, who G. North mentions addresses both of these covenants). We see both in scripture and each seem to align with law and gospel, respectively. For instance, the Mosaic law says, “do this and you shall live” while in the Abrahamic covenant we see God make a promise to Abraham without his participation. While Suzerain Treaties involve both parties passing through the pieces, in the Abrahamic covenant, God is the only one to pass through. That is why Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. It seems like without a royal grant we remain under the law and are saved by our works.

From an economic standpoint, its not clear to me God has established a covenant with other nations besides Israel. If so, how we would apply the year of jubilee in an American context? Jesus seemed to have little concern with the Mosaic law being adopted by Rome.

I will admit to knowing little about Dr. North prior to this interview. I really value the content on RPF and understand that just having him as a guest does not mean Joshua agrees with him. (in fact, he does a good job challenging him on a variety of topics). But I have to admit, if only half of the stuff is true on the internet about his views, particularly enforcement of OT law to apply capital punishment for things like homosexuality, adultery etc., then I am shocked that he is being brought on as a guest on this show. I was intrigued by his verse by verse interpretation of scripture though a lens of economics but frankly disgusted by some of the views he has espoused in the past. Perhaps I need to read more of his material before judging, but the little I’ve checked out is down right scary.

Be a good student. Don’t believe the internet. Just go to the source and read the primary sources. Most of North’s books are available, for free, right on his website.

FYI re: your being shocked at a guest on my show. Here’s something you should know as a listener of RPF:

I’ll always tell you exactly what I believe if I’m personally asked about it. I’ll do it honestly and forthrightly.

But I have no fear whatsoever of bringing on guests from a vast array of backgrounds and ideas, no matter whether I agree or disagree. I’ll happily bring on someone shocking and offensive, if I’m interested in the topic or the person. The show is called RADICAL Personal Finance for a reason. (For RPF, of course, they must be related to finance.)

Bad ideas need to be brought into the light and exposed and argued against publicly. When you push an idea into the shadows and seek to censor it, you only embolden it.

Bad ideas, if they come up, should be heard, argued against, and clearly exposed as being bad ideas. That’s how you defeat them. You don’t defeat them by avoiding them.

I do however, draw a very clear line of censorship against ugly, rude, and offensive people who communicate in an offensive manner. I don’t mind offensive ideas, discussed carefully and thoughtfully. But I have no patience for offensive people whose only aim is to shock the sensibility of a listener.

So, in short, you won’t find any late-night media personalities on RPF. Using them simply as a common example, I find most of those people to be insincere and offensive. Their late-night shows might be free of “offensive ideas” but they are filled with offensive people.

But I’ll happily discuss difficult topics with a thoughtful and sincere person. If there’s a shocking or offensive idea that relates to finance, it’s welcome on RPF, as long as it’s being discussed in a thoughtful and sincere manner.

Joshua,
Point taken, and I 100% agree with spirited, but civil debate. Like I said I was not very familiar with him and your podcast has spurred me to read more of Dr. North’s material. I am a Christian who happens to work as a public elementary school principal, so I’m admittedly biased about what it might look like to be a Christian in the public sphere. One quote from his book, healer of nations: “To put it as bluntly as possible, if Christians are too stupid to pull their children out of the government-funded, humanist school system, then they are too stupid to avoid the Gulag Archipelago.” Yikes! I’m not anti-home schooling or Christian schools, but definitely value Christian families and teachers being involved in the public school environment and see the impact it has on what we do every day. But as you say, hosting controversial guests and ideas to create a forum for debate is healthy, so I stand corrected regarding my hasty criticism of hosting such a guest. He’s a prolific writer and certainly one should become more familiar with the breadth of his ideas before either subscribing to or dismissing his ideas. From the little I’ve read of Dr. North, I suspect I will disagree with a lot of what he says, but I’ll check it out more fully from his actual works. On the subject of divorce, I think of the passage in Mark 10 where the religious leaders told Jesus that Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away. But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard.” While I value the OT and all of scripture to apply to life, I lean toward the lens of the Cross to interpret OT laws and application to our society. I need to read more about Dr. North’s views on what it exactly it means to seek to be a more Christian Nation and exactly how Christians should go about working to bring the “Kingdom of God” into all areas of life. At any rate. Thank you for your thoughtful response and for your continual work with RPF.

Joshua, appreciate how you summed things up and urgued the listener to read scripture for themselves and pray.
Overall it was good to hear the back and forth debate free from name calling and personal attack common in the main stream. I was surprised how often Dr North dismissed ideas he considered minority (libertarians, premillennial, your views on divorce) I was happy you brought that up in the last case. As a Christian I desire to follow God and scripture not traditional or the majority. I was also one of the 8 people who listened to the end and wrestle with some of the same issues. Appreciate you bringing this content; it made me think.

Hi Joshua,
Just to begin, I consider myself a brother to you in terms of your beliefs. I am a new listener and have made my way through all of your posts up to now. So I get your bent toward the “Christian” side of personal finance. Mixing in the “Christian” part can be tricky and it can be divisive. I am a supporter of this as well.

I am a huge fan of your approach to financial planning and your slight suspicion of some approaches to financial planning and their built-in biases. I like that you are radical in your outlook and willing to host those who have differing, and even opposing, points of view. However… you knew there would be a “however”, I am going to have to offer a differing opinion here.

I respect you for holding to your integrity and honouring your verbal agreement not to edit this interview. The however part is… I believe some of the discussions were inappropriate for the forum you are trying to create. I was intrigued, as I believe others were too, in the opinions that could be expressed when it comes to the view of economics through the lens of a “faith person”. And to a degree it hit the mark, but the discussion wandered into territory that is not necessarily beneficial to the title or the expectations that it set us up for.

The discussion of divorce and adultery, while applicable to the God follower, is not necessarily beneficial to the audience you have built up. It is kind of like the parents having a discussion at the family dinner table, talking about things that do not concern the children, and might even border on being inappropriate for their ears or maturity level. These are the kinds of discussions that are appropriate for discussion among fellow Christ followers, but seem to stray off in a direction that was not necessary.

How could it have been handled differently? Some content is the responsibility of the interviewer. And I have to give you credit, I have heard a number of your interviews where you probed and prodded and asked for details that your interviewees were not expecting to go. That is you directing the interview. In this interview, however, you strayed into territory that was not where we thought you were going to take us. A simple redirecting statement like, “interesting comment, but back to the topic at hand…”. I do not wish to tell you how to do your job, as you know this world better than the rest of us.

Or perhaps, you do edit some content, and then go back to the interviewee and say you have decided to edit after all, and do you mind listening and either approving or disapproving (and thus deleting) of the changes you make, before “going live” or publishing.

The podcast left listeners somewhat bewildered and wondering what to do with this episode. It did start on the note of the influence of the Christian faith on economics, but morphed into a discussion that was not necessarily applicable or profitable.

This is all just my opinion. I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Send future replies about this episode to my inbox.Get only replies to your comment, the best of the rest, as well as a daily recap of all comments on this post. No more than a few emails daily, which you can reply to/unsubscribe from directly from your inbox.